Last Active
  • ¿Qué opinan ustedes de Narcos?

    I really enjoy the series, even when it's embellishing the truth a bit. The one thing I don't like is like @Dummy said:the narrator. Not only is Pena a much more compelling character and better actor, but it feels like Netflix didn't really trust its audience. Not only does the narrator overexplain things, but its like Netflix didn't think that a show with mostly Latino actors would do well and had to make sure that a blue eyed guy was front and center. Murphy's story, and his troubles with his wife, are so dull compared to everything else. At least there was less of him this season.

    You don't need the Narrator going "and the Cali cartel was really violent" in the middle of a scene where they are torturing someone. And "will Murphy stay married" is just dull.

    But other than that, great. Especially since they were willing to deal a bit more with the shades of gray of the story (like propping up the Cali cartel).
    DummyElisaNatter Cast
  • Silicon Valley

    The other aspect of it is the original Meinertzhagen's Haversack. It wasn't just about committing to a fake plan to fool observers. Meinertzhagen intentionally dropped a sack with fake plans set up specifically to fool the Turks.
  • 602 - "Home" - Spoiler thread!

    Ok... ok... ok.. so you have Doran out smarted by these ridiculous versions of the Sand Snakes... fine...
    BUT THEN you have Roose played by his son? Come on! Ramsay is a mad dog, as Roose points out while Roose is this cold calculating genius. Just plain and simply stupid. 
    And the Karstark is just like "Oh yeah that's cool. No biggy, this is the new lord" WTF? LOL 

    Also, how ridiculous does Bran look being carried by Hodor now? LOL He's almost as tall as Hodor. 

    This is actually one area where the show has handled it better than the books. Ramsay killing Roose actually makes sense. Ramsay is bold enough to want to kill him. And, unlike most of the book stuff, getting rid of Roose makes sense in terms of helping unite the north, since Roose participated in the treason, but not Ramsay.

    The Ramsay plot is the worst part of the books for me. Book Ramsay attacks other major lords and other major houses, and is suspected by Roose of killing his firstborn, and yet Ramsay keeps getting by through a massive plot armor (the way he survives Rodrik is ridiculous). Show Ramsay has been cruel only to no names and the Iron Born, and was discreet with Sansa. In other words, it makes sense that Kastarks and others would side with Ramsay versus Roose and the Freys. We know Ramsay is crazy, but from the point of view of the average northern lord Ramsay is untainted by the red wedding while being the one to get rid of the Ironborn and Stannis, which would make him much more popular than Roose and his Frey wife.
    Duncan MacTheEconomistShooterMcGrabbinElisaDaveyMacMelonusk
  • 210 - "Klick"

    Temporary guardianship was only applicable to the hospital. Don't get thrown off by the term guardian. Chuck was refusing the tests. Legally, the hospital cannot force Chuck to take the tests. That is, unless someone else becomes his guardian and consents to it on his behalf. That was what the guardianship talk was all about.

    As for the whole Chuck v Jimmy thing, someone else mentioned it already, but the entire point of the season seems to be a distinction between the good criminal and the bad innocent.

    Jimmy is a scumbag who does illegal things. But the net result of his "felony" is that a wealthy law firm lost one client that ultimately doesn't make much of a difference to them. Meanwhile, Chuck has been within the law (though he has violated professional ethics quite egregiously) with the goal of destroying his brother's and by extension Kim's career.
  • 209 - "Nailed"

    Arguing the ethics of Chuck vs. Jimmy is really interesting to me.
    To narrow the focus, compare Chuck's decision to go into the office to get th client back from Kim for HHM with Jimmy's decision to alter the Mesa Verde legal files. What Jimmy did was illegal. What Chuck did was not only perfectly legal, but it is part of his job and considered praiseworthy in his profession. Yet the show still manages to get us to sympathize with Jimmy and not with Chuck, at least to some extent. On the one hand, we know that Chuck wasn't really just doing his job. He only seems to be able to summon the will to get past his "disease" and go into th office if there is an opportunity to hurt Jimmy. On the other hand, since Jimmy is the protagonist and we get to see the good side of him, we are somewhat willing to overlook some of his faults.
    To some extent, the same thing was going on with Walter White in Breaking Bad. Many watchers were able to keep rooting for Walt up to a certain point in spite of his increasingly dark turns.
    What Chuck did was certainly not ethical, and possibly illegal:

    New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct:

    "a lawyer shall
    not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw
    from the representation of a client if:
    (2) the lawyer's physical or
    mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the

    HHM could represent Mesa Verde. Chuck insisting that he personally fill out the application, argue it in front of the board, etc. when he can't even withstand a few minutes around a photocopier, however, violates the above. Chuck's presentation to Mesa Verde and subsequent representation were set up precisely to hide his mental condition.